Jonathan Collin Autry v. County of Sacramento, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00554
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN COLLIN AUTRY, Case No. 2:22-cv-0554-TLN-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff brought this § 1983 action against defendants Babu, Kim, Abdalla, and 19 Sacramento County, alleging that, during his time at the Sacramento County Jail, defendants 20 failed to provide him with adequate medical care and failed to comply with the Americans with 21 Disabilities Act. ECF No. 32. The discovery deadline, including the filing of any motions to 22 compel, was set for June 27, 2025.1 ECF No. 80. Pending are plaintiff’s motions to extend that 23 deadline, ECF Nos. 83 & 88, to compel discovery, ECF Nos. 97, 98, & 99, to appoint counsel, 24 ECF Nos. 100 & 102, and for discovery on paper, ECF No. 89, and his requests for deposition 25 transcripts, ECF No. 90. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 85, arguing that 26 terminating sanctions should be imposed because plaintiff has failed to respond to their 27 1 The initial discovery deadline was May 29, 2025, see ECF No. 58, but it was later 28 extended at the request of plaintiff, see ECF No. 80. 1 interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions. ECF No. 85-1 at 2. 2 Plaintiff’s various discovery-related motions will be denied. I will also deny defendants’ motion 3 to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiff must fulfill his outstanding discovery obligations within 4 thirty days. If he fails to do so, defendants may renew their motion. In light of plaintiff’s 5 difficulties with lockdown, I will extend the discovery window as follows: the parties shall have: 6 (1) thirty days from the date of this order in which to propound any additional discovery; (2) sixty 7 days from the date of this order to respond to that additional discovery; and (3) seventy-five days 8 from the date of this order to file any motion to compel. I will set a new deadline for dispositive 9 motions once this new discovery period is closed and any associated motions to compel are 10 adjudicated. This new schedule does not affect the requirement that plaintiff fulfill his 11 outstanding discovery obligations or the window in which defendants may renew their motion for 12 terminating sanctions. 13 Plaintiff’s Motions 14 A. Motions to Extend Discovery Deadline 15 Plaintiff has filed two motions to extend discovery, one on June 20, 2025, before the 16 deadline expired, ECF No. 83, and one nearly a month after discovery ended, on July 7, 2025, 17 ECF No. 88. In his first motion, he states that a lockdown at High Desert State Prison has 18 frustrated his ability to conduct discovery and that defendants have committed perjury in some 19 unspecified way. ECF No. 83 at 2-4. As stated above, I will extend discovery for a limited 20 period so that plaintiff may propound his desired discovery. Accordingly, I will deny plaintiff’s 21 motions for extension as moot. 22 B. Motions to Compel 23 In light of my decision to deny plaintiff’s motions to extend discovery, I also deny his 24 motions to compel, ECF Nos. 97, 98, & 99. These motions are little more than improperly filed 25 requests for production. Plaintiff may submit his discovery requests in the new extended period. 26 C. Requests for Transcripts 27 Two of plaintiff’s motions also seek deposition transcripts from the deposition conducted 28 1 by defendants. ECF Nos. 90 & 97.2 Those requests are denied. Copies may be obtained from the 2 reporter who took the deposition, at plaintiff’s expense. See Spencer v. Lopez, No. 1:20-cv- 3 01203-JLT-CDB (PC), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203006, *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2022) (“A prisoner 4 proceeding in forma pauperis is not entitled to a free transcript of his deposition taken by 5 defendants in civil rights suit.”). 6 D. Motions for Counsel 7 Plaintiff has filed two motions seeking appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 100 & 102. I 8 have already explained that plaintiff does not have a right to counsel in this case and that the court 9 appoints counsel in civil cases only in the exceptional circumstance where the claimant 10 demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits, complex claims at issue, and an inability to 11 present his claims on his own. ECF No. 11 at 2. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that exceptional 12 circumstances warranting appointment of counsel exist. These motions are denied. 13 E. Motion for Discovery to be Produced on Paper 14 Plaintiff filed a motion asking that the discovery produced by defendants be delivered on 15 paper rather than a flash drive. ECF No. 89. Defendants indicate that they have done so. ECF 16 No. 92 at 2. The motion also contains numerous other discovery requests that appear to be made 17 for the first time in the motion. ECF No. 89 at 3-6. Those requests may now be made in the new 18 discovery period. 19 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 20 Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that terminating sanctions are 21 appropriate because plaintiff has failed to respond to their interrogatories, requests for production, 22 and requests for admission that were propounded on November 20, 2024, and which were the 23 subject of a successful motion to compel. ECF No. 85-1 at 2. Terminating sanctions, however, 24 are inappropriate where the party against whom they are sought has not been warned that they 25 may issue. See Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). 26 Accordingly, I will recommend that defendants’ motion be denied without prejudice to renewal. 27

28 2 The second motion requests copies of the transcripts at ECF No. 97 at 28. 1 | This shall serve as plaintiff's warning that terminating sanctions may issue if he fails to fulfill his 2 | discovery obligations. All outstanding discovery that he owes to defendants must be submitted 3 | within thirty days of the issuance of these recommendations. 4 Conclusion 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's motions, ECF Nos. 83, 88, 89, 90, 97, 98, 99, 100, and 102, are DENIED. 7 2. The discovery window is extended as follows: the parties shall have: (1) thirty days from 8 | the date of this order in which to propound any additional discovery; (2) sixty days from the date 9 | of this order to respond to that additional discovery; and (3) seventy-five days from the date of 10 | this order to file any motion to compel. I will set a new deadline for dispositive motions once this 11 | new discovery period is closed and any associated motions to compel are adjudicated. 12 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 85, be 13 | DENIED without prejudice to renewal. Plaintiff must fulfill his outstanding discovery 14 | obligations within thirty days of the issuance of these recommendations. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days of 17 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 18 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 19 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 20 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 21 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 22 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 23 | 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ September 23, 2025 q——— 26 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE